Questions?
Comments? E-mail Robert T. Chisholm, Associate Member OSPE, at attention_to_the_facts@hotmail.com
A1.2(C) MORE ON THE JOB HUNTER’S CONUNDRUM
The problem posed by low success probabilities in job
applications leads automatically to something else: loss of control of personal
finances because it represents a mathematical problem having no solution.
People employed – passably comfortably or better – refuse to acknowledge this
and use their positions to indulge in incompetent and un-informed criticism of
those out of work. Here’s a small part of what’s going on:-
Probability of landing a job within “n” applications if the probability of any one application being successful is 1/N.
It can be shown that this is given by:-
PS = 1- {(N-1)/N}n - equation (2),
where PS = probability of success
Alternatively, if we are interested in the number of
job applications for a given success probability,
n = log(1- PS)
/ log{(N-1)/N} - equation (2a)
There is another way to approach the
problem, based on a job hunter’s own personal statistics concerning numbers of
applications sent out prior to landing previous jobs and the time spent on the
different activities involved. However in the interests of brevity it will not
be detailed here.
This will serve to warn some people, especially in government, that the overall problem is not as simple as it might appear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“BEST CASE”: EXAMPLE
Someone already working, always competing against 4 other “top” people for a better job, where there is a 50% chance of one of the 5 “top” people getting it.
From equation (2) this person will have a 65% chance of being successful after applying for 10 such jobs. If he / she wants to know the number of job applications to make in order to have a 95% chance of success, equation (2a) would indicate a need for 28.43 which means 29 in practice.
Based on an average of 3 hours per application
(research, doing the application, interview etc.) this means 30 hours of work
or 87 hours of work on job applications, respectively. Probably enough to be
annoying; on the other hand no particular worry for someone who is
already working anyway. These are also people likely to be
consistently favoured for employment based on the “who you know” factor and who
always “know somebody”.
“WORST CASE”: EXAMPLE
Someone out of work for a long time, no gainful employment at all, always competing against 459 other people in similar situations for a better job, where there is a 5% chance of one of this group of people getting the job.
From equation (2) this person will have a 63.2%
chance of being successful after applying for 9200 such jobs. Based on an
average of 3 hours per application (research, doing the application, interview
etc.) this means 27,600 hours of work (690 weeks at 40 hours per week and 13.8
years based on 50 weeks per year) on job applications, respectively, WITH
ZERO INCOME FROM GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT DURING THAT TIME FRAME.
If he / she wants to know the number of job applications
to make in order to have a 95% chance of success, equation (2a) would indicate
a need for 27,559 job applications under the same conditions, about 40 years
spent doing job applications AND ZERO INCOME FROM GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT DURING
THAT TIME FRAME.
This is ABSURD. The situation giving rise to this is both ABSURD and UN-RECOGNIZED by most people.
People already in passably comfortable jobs will not,
of course, know or care about any of this AND WON’T BE THINKING ABOUT THE
ASSOCIATED LOSSES TO THE TAX BASE, EITHER.
THE “WHO YOU KNOW” FACTOR - AND ITS EXPLOITATION/MISUSE
AT THE EXPENSE OF PEOPLE OUT OF WORK.
Those who are working and who have successful
workplace-based track records
like to tell “outsiders” how “...you have to know somebody...” if you want a
job. They also like to point out how “...there are lots of jobs...”, or some
such, contrary to the experience of people experiencing endless trouble.
When they say “...you have to know somebody...”, or some
such, what they actually mean (but without ever admitting it) is that you have
to have sufficient good professional references based on your professional
referees knowing your day-to-day work.
They ignore the fact that if you are having endless
trouble getting work, then you can never acquire a retinue of such referees in
the first place.
What they are actually doing is being supercilious and
creating mischief and confusion, by making the situation appear to be something
different while offering no solution to the resulting dilemma.
REFUSAL OF “INSIDERS” TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEMS OF
RELATIVELY UNFAVOURABLE SUCCESS PROBABILITIES FOR “OUTSIDERS”, WHEN JOB
HUNTING.
OVER-EMPHASIS ON “APPEARANCES” IN THE JOB HUNTING
PROCESS.
An additional problem area concerns gross over-emphasis
on resume-writing and other aspects of “appearances” involved in the job application process.
Meanwhile, nobody does anything serious about the
supply-demand situation referred to elsewhere on this site.
On top of that, there are serious and inexcusable
bureaucratic obstructions placed in the way of people needing retraining to
acquire new skills relevant to current job market needs.
These obstructions are rooted in dysfunctional
E.I.-related rules concerning “insurable weeks of employment”, Ontario Works eligibility rules and so on.
THE “PINK
ELEPHANT” PROBLEM – NON-EXISTENT “PROJECTS”, OR THOSE WHICH “CONVENIENTLY” FAIL
TO MATERIALIZE.
The above analysis leaves out the effects of the
“pink elephant” problem of projects failing to materialize for employers -
meaning no work for anybody offered a job on the condition that certain
projects actually materialize (as opposed to representing bids that did not win
any contract).
Questions? Comments? E-mail Robert T. Chisholm, Associate Member OSPE, at attention_to_the_facts@hotmail.com